renforge_stopStop a running Ren'Py game or cancel its in-progress launch, then clean up resources. Use it to halt execution and release the game session.
Stop a running game or cancel its in-progress launch, then clean up.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_path | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only adds 'then clean up' as a trait. It does not say whether unsaved game state is lost, whether the cleanup is reversible, whether the call blocks until shutdown completes, or if any permissions/preconditions apply to a destructive lifecycle operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One sentence, front-loaded with the primary action, with no filler. Its brevity is appropriate structurally, though it borders on underspecified rather than tightly scoped.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but for a lifecycle/destructive control tool with zero annotations and an undocumented required parameter, the description omits the essential details an agent needs. The gaps in state-loss behavior and parameter meaning are material.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the single parameter project_path has no explanation anywhere. The description never mentions the parameter or clarifies what path is expected (project root vs. executable vs. working directory), leaving the caller to guess.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb (stop/cancel) and resource (running game, in-progress launch), making it immediately distinguishable from the launch-oriented siblings like renforge_launch and renforge_launch_status. It stops short of naming an alternative tool, but the purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It implies the two conditions under which the tool applies: a game that is running, or a launch that is still in progress. However, there is no guidance on when not to call it, no prerequisites, and no reference to any sibling tool, so the usage context is only inferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.